In Camera or Editing?

[EmMcCon]

What are your opinions on creative effects: use in camera tools/funky lenses (eg. creative modes, "lens baby" lenses) or edit (eg. photoshop)? I usually edit later but I'm really curious BTW this is my first post so yeah...and stuff...:er:

 

[tirediron]

I prefer to get right in the camera. I'm not a fan of editing. Of course you will always need to do minor tune-ups on an image (That old Adams quote about, 'dodging and burning being ways to correct the mistakes that God made in tonal relationships...") but that's about all. I always shoot RAW and avoid all possible in-camera processing. Those things that do need to be done will be done in post using one of several editing applications.

 

[enzodm]

"creative modes" and lensbabies are quite different. Creative modes are obtained through software even on camera, so they can be replicated in pp (if you shoot raw in particular). The effect of a lens can only be faked in pp, which is not the same.

 

[EmMcCon]

I know I just wanted to make it simpler with 2 options

 

[480sparky]

If you're looking for a specific effect, then go in-camera if at all possible. Otherwise, do it in post.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Those of us who come from the film world learned to do as much in camera as possible, especially when doing commercial work which was shot on transparencies. Transparency film (slides) is much harder to manipulate than when you are printing. Each new generation (when you reshoot a transparency with an added effect) added some deterioration to the overall quality. I did a lot of those, with what would be called extreme PP today, for my personal (art) work and I spent a lot of time figuring out how to add several effects at the same time to minimize the number of generations.

In the age of digital, the problem is totally different. Special effects that can be added post shoot should be added post shoot because there is no loss of quality if done correctly. This is exactly the same as in a audio recording studio (I was a recording engineer for a while.) When you start recording you lay down tracks of pure sound. The instrument as it is. Then you add the effects. If they don't fit your vision, the original pure track is still there and you can try in another direction until you get what you want.

Now, there are always exceptions to every rule. When Jimmy Page plays the guitar with a bow, that effect cannot be reproduced later (or we'll agree to assume that for the sake of the argument) so you record it from the start. In photography it would be the same with a polarizing filter. There is no way to reproduce the effect of a CPL through any of the PP software so you will use it on camera.

Now, I still do a lot in camera. I frame correctly from the start and I cringe every time I read some one saying shoot wide and crop later... In my studio, there is a shop because for some of the stuff I shoot we build some fairly involved sets. Some of those could be created on the computer and we could then insert the person or object that is the reason for the photo into it but, from my try-outs with my PP person (who is very good I might add,) it just doesn't look real enough.

Just a couple days ago there was an article about Cokin, I believe, being in trouble financially. Should we be surprised? Not really. Most of their filters' effects can be reproduced in PP and there is no reason to carry around or use most of them anymore.

Hope that helps.

 

[MTVision]

I was doing some special effects in camera for a while and found they don't always come out as nice as if you did it with editing software. I sometimes crop photos in-camera but thats it now!

 

[Derrel]

In-camera much more so than in editing.

 

[IgsEMT]

I'm shooting for 90% of the final image as it comes out of the camera, the other 7% is editing (cropping, contrast, saturation - minor stuff) and 3% is how my lab prints it.
One in-camera filter I use at weddings is cross-screen filter and for that I take out my loving D90, take few shots, create the image, and back into the camera bag it goes.
Unfortunately, not everything that comes out of the camera is 90% so sometimes more editing is needed.

 

[frisii]

I prefer the look of a gradual color filter than the same effect applied digitally.

 

[EmMcCon]

[ QUOTE=IgsEMT;2313092]I'm shooting for 90% of the final image as it comes out of the camera, the other 7% is editing (cropping, contrast, saturation - minor stuff) and 3% is how my lab prints it.One in-camera filter I use at weddings is cross-screen filter and for that I take out my loving D90, take few shots, create the image, and back into the camera bag it goes. Unfortunately, not everything that comes out of the camera is 90% so sometimes more editing is needed.[/QUOTE] Yeah that sounds like me except I don't have a 2nd camera or a lab :L

 

[skieur]

Major difference is that in camera generally applies the effect to the whole image. Post editing can apply the effect to any section of the image while leaving the rest of it...as shot.

skieur

 

[IgsEMT]

EmMcCon: I have to have a 2nd body and here's why...
Its 1999 I just started shooting, barely had the money to buy a camera and I bought a cute little bronica. Guy I worked for, was also shooting bronica, this was a 2 crew wedding and he allowed me to use his lenses, since I didn't have any. Anyways, so I show up with my burrowed monolights, quantum flash on the bracket, 3 camera backs, lumedyne in my assistant's hand (mind you, the only MINE gear was camera body w/ 3 backs, everything else was grace of friends and colleagues). So we start working, all is going well until GORGEOUS bride's maid walks by... my assistant's attention turns on her, lumedyne in his hands flies at me and knocks my newly used camera to the ground... Photographer I was shooting for had 3 bodies, so I burrowed one of his, and finished the job with now 2 backs oh and his 100mm was totally trashed. I spend next 3 weddings paying of camera repair, lens replacement, $ for backup body and few more lenses. Don't get me wrong, I had problems w/ digital as well, but here electronics were acting out Anyways, if I'm getting paid for assignment, I bring my backup.

 

[Tomasko]

If you're shooting raw, it doesn't really matter

 

[skieur]

In-camera much more so than in editing.

In camera is more for a shot that you could have handled better over all. Post is for a shot where you can improve on the limitations of the camera and/or the lens through tone mapping, selective filtering, bringing up detail in shadow areas etc.

skieur